EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/314/10
Case C-447/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgerichts Innsbruck by decision of that court of 30 September 2004 in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG
Case C-447/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgerichts Innsbruck by decision of that court of 30 September 2004 in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG
Case C-447/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgerichts Innsbruck by decision of that court of 30 September 2004 in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG
OJ C 314, 18.12.2004, p. 6–6
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.12.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 314/6 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgerichts Innsbruck by decision of that court of 30 September 2004 in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG
(Case C-447/04)
(2004/C 314/10)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) of 30 September 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG.
The Landesgericht Innsbruck asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:
Is Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the insurance company against which a claim has been made is always subject to a three-month time-limit to deal with the matter, even in the case of a simple factual and legal situation, or that this refers merely to a ‘setting of the due date’, which does not exclude earlier settlement of the claim by the insurance company after the setting of an ‘appropriate’ time-limit for payment which is also within the three-month period?
(1) OJ L 181, p. 65.